In a landmark move towards judicial transparency, all 33 sitting judges of the Supreme Court have unanimously decided to disclose their assets on the apex court’s official website. This decision, taken at a full court meeting on April 1, marks a significant departure from the previous discretionary approach to asset declaration.
The resolution, which applies to both current and future judges, comes amid rising concerns over judicial opacity. Calls for greater accountability have intensified following recent controversies, including the alleged discovery of a large sum of cash at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence while he was serving as a Delhi High Court judge. Justice Varma, currently under in-house inquiry, has since been transferred back to the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court’s decision to mandate asset disclosure is widely seen as an effort to bolster public confidence in judicial integrity.
The debate on judicial asset transparency has persisted for decades. In 1997, the Supreme Court adopted the “Restatement of Values of Judicial Life,” requiring judges to declare assets to the Chief Justice of India (CJI). High Court judges were to follow a similar practice with their respective chief justices. However, these declarations remained internal and were not made public.
In 2009, amid public scrutiny, the Supreme Court permitted voluntary asset disclosure. However, it was never mandated, and the current Supreme Court website still states that disclosure remains optional, with 30 out of 33 judges having submitted their declarations.
The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 fueled discussions on judicial transparency, but Section 8(1)(j) of the Act exempts disclosure of personal information unless there is a larger public interest. In 2009, activist Subhash Chandra Agarwal filed an RTI request for Supreme Court judges’ asset details, leading to a legal battle. The Central Information Commission (CIC) ruled in favor of disclosure, but the judiciary resisted, citing privacy concerns.
In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Secretary General, Supreme Court of India vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal that while judges must declare assets to the CJI, public disclosure would require compelling public interest. This stance was reaffirmed in 2019 by a five-judge Constitution bench.
Criticism over the lack of mandatory public disclosure has continued, especially since elected officials and bureaucrats must declare their assets publicly. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice recommended mandatory disclosures in 2023, but no legal mandate followed. In November 2024, the government informed the Rajya Sabha that it had no plans to make asset declaration compulsory for judges.
Recently, RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha raised a query in the Rajya Sabha about mandatory asset disclosure for judges. Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal responded on March 27, stating that a Supreme Court-appointed committee of judges had upheld voluntary disclosure, citing the 2019 Constitution bench ruling. The committee reaffirmed that judges must declare their assets to the CJI upon assuming office and after any substantial acquisition, with compliant judges’ names displayed on the court’s website.
The government also clarified that, despite recommendations from the Parliamentary Committee on Law and Justice, no legal provisions have been established under the High Court Judges Act, 1954, or the Supreme Court Judges Act, 1958, to mandate public disclosure. The judiciary remains responsible for maintaining asset records, with no central repository for such data.
